> .................................................
> >The following ID progress report was just released by Phillip Johnson
> >today.

............................

>
> >Approximately ten years ago, I formulated the Wedge strategy with two
> >related goals. The first was to legitimate the topic of intelligent
> >design, and hence the critique of Darwinism and its basis in naturalistic
> >philosophy, within the mainstream intellectual community. The second
> >was
> >to make the critique of naturalism the central focus of discussion in the
> >religious world, replacing the deadlocked debate over the Genesis
> >chronology which had enabled the Darwinists to employ the "Inherit the
> >Wind
> >stereotype" so effectively.

........................................................

> ......................................
> >I optimistically predicted at the beginning that both goals would be
> >achieved by the start of the new millennium. That could be dated either
> >at
> >January 1, 2000 or, to give a bit of wriggle room, a year later. I was not
> >ready to declare success on either of those dates, although I knew we
> >were
> >very close. The recent front page stories in the Sunday Los Angeles
> >Times
> >(March 25) and the Sunday New York Times (April 8), in the context of
> >other
> >developments, meet the criteria for success I have specified.

................................................................

A few comments on Johnson's 2d goal, 'to make the critique of
naturalism the central focus of discussion in the religious world, replacing
the deadlocked debate over the Genesis chronology which had enabled the
Darwinists to employ the "Inherit the Wind stereotype" so effectively.'
1) The central focus of discussion in the religious world has not for
a long time been "the Genesis chronology". The great majority of church
leaders, theologians, and ordinary Christians (not even to mention those of
other faiths) devote very little time & energy to that issue. Nor have they
replaced it with concern about intelligent design.
2) Presumably Johnson doesn't really mean "the religious world" as a
whole but discussions of religion-science issues. Even with that narrowing of
focus he has vastly overstated the importance of the Genesis chronology and
ID. Most of the scientists and theologians involved in the theology-science
dialogue deal with those questions only peripherally if at all. Of course the
doctrines of creation and providence are vital to this dialogue, but it is only
theological naivete which will lead one to think that either the chronology of
Genesis (as distinguished from more important themes of that book) or design as
the ID folks conceive it are central to those doctrines.
3) Christians involved in the theology-science dialogue will reject
metaphysical naturalism but many (including myself) have presented cogent
reasons for methodological naturalism. By ignoring that distinction, and
pretending that the two are equivalent, Johnson distorts the extent to which
"naturalism" is being criticized.
4) Johnson's statement of his second goal reveals the hypocrisy of
those in the Wedge movement who want to pretend that their arguments are purely
philosophical and scientific. Recall, e.g., Dembski's recent criticism of
Eugenie Scott for implying that the Intelligent Designer was "the Big G". Of
course it's been obvious from the start that the Intelligent Designer of the
IDers is none other than the God of philosophical theism but Johnson's desire
to make ID concerns the main topic of discussion in "the religious world" makes
this quite explicit. It would be nice if we could now just drop all the
pretense, but that will probably not happen: The last thing the IDers seem to
want is serious theological discussion.